----- Original Message -----
From: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>; <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>;
"Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>; <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>;
<xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 6:29 AM
Subject: RE: Issue 146 proposed resolution
> Only as a mandatory extension
Yes, that's no big deal
> and only by effectively redeploying *all*
> existing SOAP nodes.
Talking to implementors leads me to believe that very few support actor
anyway, so we're essentially already in that situation.
> Without a targeting mechanism, it furthermore
> becomes very difficult to not just have passive forwarders.
So put the targeting mechanism in the extension. I think people have enough
on their plates getting a message from A to B let alone going via C, D and
E.
> This all has
> a *very* high cost and will be fragile as a result.
Why would an extension be any more fragile than the current situation.
> We had this discussion a long time ago
Yes, I said then that I thought actor was underspecified and that
intermediaries was a can of worms we should not tackle in our first REC. I
think the number of issues that are currently related to
actor/intermediaries bears this out somewhat.
>- I would strongly recommend
> focusing on solving the outstanding issues of which there are plenty
> rather than going back in circles.
Oh, I'm focussed on solving issues. I just have different suggestions for
the solutions!
Cheers
Gudge